Ayithanath Joseph vs Taluk Land Board on 8 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 358 of 2006()


1. AYITHANATH JOSEPH, S/O. MANI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TALUK LAND BOARD, THALIPARAMBA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R
             S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                 -------------------------------
            C.R.P.NOS.358 & 359 OF 2006 ()
               -----------------------------------
        Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010

                         O R D E R

These revisions are filed by two claimants against the

orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thaliparamba turning

down their claim petitions moved under Section 85(8) of the

Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of portions of land, the

possession of which had been taken over as excess land in the

ceiling proceedings initiated against one K.T.Kunhappa

Nambiar, the declarant in ceiling proceedings

TLB/1750/73/TBA. The declarant had been directed to

surrender an extent of 19.35 acres of land by order dated

30.6.1981 in the above proceedings. The order of the Taluk

Land Board would show that the lands ordered for surrender

were taken over possession by the Tahsildar on 28.8.1981 and

22.10.1981 respectively. Fifteen years thereafter, the present

petitioners have moved claim petitions in respect of portions

of that land. After scrutiny of their claims, the Taluk Land

Board found no merit in the claim raised and the petitions

were dismissed. In the revisions filed challenging against the

CRP.358 & 359/06 2

orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, it is argued by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the

amendment brought to the Land Reforms Act under Act 21 of

2006, petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 7E

of the Amended Act. I am not impressed by the submissions

made. First of all, to claim the benefit under Section 7E of the

amended Act, the claimant should be in possession of the land

and satisfy other conditions specified under that section. The

land involved in the present case had already been taken over

possession by the Taluk Land Board 15 yeas prior to the claim

petitions moved by the petitioners. Secondly, the Taluk Land

Board has no authority to determine any right in respect of a

benefit claimed under Section 7E of the amended Act brought

in by way of amendment to the Land Reforms Act. Petitioners,

if they are entitled to any benefit under Section 7E, can

pursue such remedies, if available under the law, before the

competent authority. Subject to the above observation, these

revisions are dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp